Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Possible cap casualties in 2017
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 666307"><p>I don't necessarily disagree. This is an aspect of the middle ground being plowed between "strike now while the iron is hot" and perpetual competitiveness. Rather than assume performance risk with unknown quantities, the Packers have choosen to apply cap risk to known quantities. And yet, there are outs with all of these seemingly expensive short term deals, even with Crosby. If they don't perform in 2016, there's little disincentive to quit them, unlike the situations that developed with Hawk and Jones.</p><p></p><p>Looking at it from the players' perspectives, they negotiate for more immediate money to compensate for the Packers' unwillingness to make long term commitments. While Crosby's deal looks like an outlier, he could be dumped for a rookie next season at the slight cost of under $700,000 cap. In fact, if we apply your argument that Crosby can be easily replaced with a minimum salary UDFA rookie at any time, the Crosby contract makes more sense. It's not like he's a QB or edge rusher where the cost of replacement is always high while entailing high risk. He can be dumped at any time with a relatively low cost/low price replacement.</p><p></p><p>There's the commonly stated argument that the total value of the contract is meaningless...it's all about the guarantees. And while I don't think that argument is as one sided as it's often presented in a sound bite, there's a lot of truth to it. It's largely about how dead cap can lock a player into a spot because it's economically unfeasible to replace him.</p><p></p><p>Actually, Cook may be a better example than the incumbents of the interplay between cap cost and risk. Is he worth $5 mil per year in a multiyear contract with some meaningful guarantees based on past performance? Not really:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CookJa02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CookJa02.htm</a></p><p></p><p>Is he worth $5 mil for a single year in a projection playing with Rodgers? It seems like a reasonable risk given there's no long term consequences and the ever important "who else ya got?" consideration.</p><p></p><p>In a way, that deal is a devil's bargain. It's been reported that the Packers wanted to sign Cook to a 2 year deal, but Cook insisted on 1 year. Would one think the Packers 2 year offer was just a doubling of the one year deal? Probably not, probably something less per year. On the other side of the coin, Cook's insistence on one year may be based on the same bet the Packers are making...a projection of career-high productivity playing with Rodgers...which he can parlay into a better multi-year deal come 2017 than he was offered in this last FA period. That may seem implausible given Cook will have 8 years under his belt, but you cannot underestimate a particular individual's exaggerated sense of self-importance.</p><p></p><p>The long and short of it: you must pay up now for lack of guarantees later, the risks being (1) the guy underperforms and you don't get your money's worth (for one year in this case) or (2) the guy has a career year and becomes unaffordable. If it's (2) and contributes to a championship, you take it. If it's (1), there's an out and you move on to the next season without a liability overhang.</p><p></p><p>It's what all these FA contracts we've been discussing are about.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 666307"] I don't necessarily disagree. This is an aspect of the middle ground being plowed between "strike now while the iron is hot" and perpetual competitiveness. Rather than assume performance risk with unknown quantities, the Packers have choosen to apply cap risk to known quantities. And yet, there are outs with all of these seemingly expensive short term deals, even with Crosby. If they don't perform in 2016, there's little disincentive to quit them, unlike the situations that developed with Hawk and Jones. Looking at it from the players' perspectives, they negotiate for more immediate money to compensate for the Packers' unwillingness to make long term commitments. While Crosby's deal looks like an outlier, he could be dumped for a rookie next season at the slight cost of under $700,000 cap. In fact, if we apply your argument that Crosby can be easily replaced with a minimum salary UDFA rookie at any time, the Crosby contract makes more sense. It's not like he's a QB or edge rusher where the cost of replacement is always high while entailing high risk. He can be dumped at any time with a relatively low cost/low price replacement. There's the commonly stated argument that the total value of the contract is meaningless...it's all about the guarantees. And while I don't think that argument is as one sided as it's often presented in a sound bite, there's a lot of truth to it. It's largely about how dead cap can lock a player into a spot because it's economically unfeasible to replace him. Actually, Cook may be a better example than the incumbents of the interplay between cap cost and risk. Is he worth $5 mil per year in a multiyear contract with some meaningful guarantees based on past performance? Not really: [URL]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CookJa02.htm[/URL] Is he worth $5 mil for a single year in a projection playing with Rodgers? It seems like a reasonable risk given there's no long term consequences and the ever important "who else ya got?" consideration. In a way, that deal is a devil's bargain. It's been reported that the Packers wanted to sign Cook to a 2 year deal, but Cook insisted on 1 year. Would one think the Packers 2 year offer was just a doubling of the one year deal? Probably not, probably something less per year. On the other side of the coin, Cook's insistence on one year may be based on the same bet the Packers are making...a projection of career-high productivity playing with Rodgers...which he can parlay into a better multi-year deal come 2017 than he was offered in this last FA period. That may seem implausible given Cook will have 8 years under his belt, but you cannot underestimate a particular individual's exaggerated sense of self-importance. The long and short of it: you must pay up now for lack of guarantees later, the risks being (1) the guy underperforms and you don't get your money's worth (for one year in this case) or (2) the guy has a career year and becomes unaffordable. If it's (2) and contributes to a championship, you take it. If it's (1), there's an out and you move on to the next season without a liability overhang. It's what all these FA contracts we've been discussing are about. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Top 30 Visits 2025
Latest: Thirteen Below
Yesterday at 10:54 PM
Draft Talk
The 80th Annual Amish Mafia Draft Contest
Latest: Todd Princl
Yesterday at 10:38 PM
Draft Talk
R
Dome over Lambeau?
Latest: rmontro
Yesterday at 10:04 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2025 Draft Clusters
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 9:26 PM
Draft Talk
Your Do Not Draft List
Latest: Dantés
Yesterday at 9:20 PM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Possible cap casualties in 2017
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
